General Discussion

struggle4progress

(125,424 posts)

106. Legal rights apply whenever there is a reasonable presumption

Mon Jul 11, 2016, 10:41 PM

Jul 2016

that the issues can be brought before the courts

This presumption might be appropriately set aside for a limited period of time under certain circumstances

It would clearly be inappropriate to employ deadly force against (say) a person suspected only of littering or jaywalking -- although there seems to be good reason to believe deadly force is regularly and inappropriately employed in cases where there is little or no evidence of serious crime or threat

But deadly force might reasonably be employed to secure the capture of a non-cooperative person suspected deadly crimes, such as serial murder, when further mayhem seems a probable result of non-capture

I see no reason to ask police to value their own lives less than I value my own. I expect most are honest civil servants, working under very stressful circumstances. Although a certain fraction of the police seem to suffer from racism, sadism, or similar personality disorders, the proper reaction is to remove those officers from the profession, rather than to stereotype the entire group

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

241 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] guillaumeb Jul 2016 OP

How many more dead police SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb Jul 2016 #2

You didn't answer my question SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb Jul 2016 #7

Of course it's a question SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Jul 2016 #124

yep . . . n/t annabanana Jul 2016 #181

People can't get rid of their rights fast enough Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #6

Actually the shooter gave up his own rights SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #8

The police had the option of waiting him out Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #17

If you listened to the police chief SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #20

How was he a danger? Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #21

Obviously you didn't listen to the police chief SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #27

Using explosives put MORE lives in danger Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #30

No, using the explosives didn't put more lives in danger SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #34

Any explosives expert will tell you that you can't always predict what explosives will do Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #42

Gunfire wasn't occurring when the robot went in SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #46

As many as it takes to do their job legally. Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #53

Thanks for the answers SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #63

Thankfully Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #85

Serious question TeddyR Jul 2016 #69

A sniper and even an armored car is a more Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #81

Ok, perhaps TeddyR Jul 2016 #86

The point is that this sets a dangerous precedent Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #90

I actually don't remember the 85 bombings TeddyR Jul 2016 #93

And certainly that can be argued Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #99

Yes. Soldiers use hand grenades in urban warfare, which are bombs. Akicita Jul 2016 #128

A "brick of C-4" Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #163

A sniper needs a clear line of sight ... Straw Man Jul 2016 #144

They call in air support Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #162

In urban warfare they use massive fire power to take out snipers hack89 Jul 2016 #166

CS gas. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #200

CS gas? Straw Man Jul 2016 #215

That robot with a small charge was discriminating. hack89 Jul 2016 #164

The "robot" was not autonomous Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #170

I am very familiar with C-4 as are the cops hack89 Jul 2016 #172

Yes, that high tech"precision" ordinance has Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #173

Nothing more precise then driving a robot up to a gunman hack89 Jul 2016 #174

Again, flashbacks Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #175

ok. nt hack89 Jul 2016 #176

Unless you think the killing of OBL was a muder. Akicita Jul 2016 #177

I was referring to Abu Ghraib Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #188

I would modify your response to: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #201

LOL actually an explosive expert will tell you exactly what its going to do. Separation Jul 2016 #211

And Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #212

This message was self-deleted by its author guillaumeb Jul 2016 #39

Why is it SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #43

Since you asked again, and politely, one dead officer is too many. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #51

If one dead officer is too many SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #56

But this execution by police is merely one of many such executions. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #61

None of the other police shootings SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #71

Google "Tamir Rice" and explain how the choice to execute Tamir guillaumeb Jul 2016 #73

They didn't merely do anything except take out somebody who needed to be taken out. Akicita Jul 2016 #129

You just don't get it! angstlessk Jul 2016 #160

I listened to the Police Chief; here's what he said: snot Jul 2016 #227

Do you have any examples of police TeddyR Jul 2016 #62

Well, recently Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #74

Omar Mateen TeddyR Jul 2016 #82

And people died while waiting him out Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #84

Well the first one, they waited a couple of hours Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #83

Explosives were used in that breach. snot Jul 2016 #228

wow. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #187

Wow, indeed. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #203

no kidding. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #218

When people are frightened it is easy to deprive them of their guillaumeb Jul 2016 #12

I'll just go off an bang my head on my desk Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #19

They're the same people who defend the Holder doctrine. OnyxCollie Jul 2016 #108

I also noticed a lot of the Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #171

Oddly, that sounds like what a lot of Igel Jul 2016 #182

And some of these folks call themselves liberals malaise Jul 2016 #146

Once you do this, you open the door for drones to be armed Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #4

They did this to keep more innocent people from dying. He was still exchanging gunfire with police Akicita Jul 2016 #131

I wonder if one of the sonic noise dohickeys they use at protests Mojorabbit Jul 2016 #142

The shooter chose not to go the judicial route. It was offered to him. Instead he chose to die. Akicita Jul 2016 #143

They said they feared he had bombs of his own Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #165

I do believe the claim was that he had planted them. Igel Jul 2016 #183

That is a ridiculous question Gman Jul 2016 #117

You're not asking the right question matt819 Jul 2016 #157

Sniper rounds or gunfire is OK through. Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #3

Let us just eliminate the courts and let the police handle it? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #9

How many more dead? SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #11

What is your legal basis for this novel theory? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #14

Why won't you answer the question? SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #16

First, you are theorizing that there would have been more fatalities. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #44

How many more dead? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #47

You are apparently a one trick pony lastone Jul 2016 #114

It's a pretty simple question that could have been answered quickly SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #145

He gave that up when after murdering, he CHOSE Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #13

The police CHOSE to bypass the problem and expense of a trial, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #15

How many more dead? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #18

Gosh, I ask myself that question everytime Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #28

The police murder of unarmed people is atrocious SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #31

Yes, it is the issue we are discussing Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #36

No, the issue is use of a robot and a bomb SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #40

NO, it is the police using excessive force to accomplish something Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #48

How many more dead? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #50

Asked and answered. Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #54

Sorry, I didn't see it SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #58

Here Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #60

'...wait until the guy comes out shooting'? Are you serious? randome Jul 2016 #32

So, the cops Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #33

So you've been in a firefight before and know that bullets never ricochet or go astray, right? randome Jul 2016 #37

So you know that explosives Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #45

Of course there is. With every use of deadly force there is a chance that things will go wrong. randome Jul 2016 #52

But with a bomb the chance of it going wrong increase Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #55

I would hope that the cops weighed all the factors before going forward. randome Jul 2016 #67

That excuse gets trotted out a lot Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #75

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. randome Jul 2016 #79

Google "Cliven Bundy" to see how police handle a white man possessing weapons guillaumeb Jul 2016 #65

Well, to be fair, this guy did kill people Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #76

True. Bundy merely threatened government workers. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #87

The intent with MOVE creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #121

I'll admit this point is relevant TeddyR Jul 2016 #91

Too bad you weren't there to go in and read the shooter his rights. FSogol Jul 2016 #24

The guy was dangerous and choes not to surrender. The police offered him the chance to surrender and Akicita Jul 2016 #133

There's the same objection every time a suspect points a gun at somebody. Igel Jul 2016 #184

...!100++++ 840high Jul 2016 #29

Thats generally the plan with an active shooter. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #25

The law professors quoted in the article disagree with you. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #35

No. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #49

Is a person surrounded and trapped in a building an immediate threat? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #57

I was unaware that Cliven bundy killed 5 people. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #66

Someone died in the bundy nonsense Egnever Jul 2016 #126

How about Waco? Lots and lots of white people were killed there by law enforcement. More than your Akicita Jul 2016 #134

Didn't the shooter himself eliminate the courts and force the police to handle it by refusing to Akicita Jul 2016 #132

you're skipping over the fact that he treestar Jul 2016 #167

At some point people can make it clear to a majority of people mythology Jul 2016 #194

A simplistic misrepresentation of my point. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #198

I support the Chief..... Historic NY Jul 2016 #22

No need for a trial. Go directly to the execution. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #64

He did give the DART officer a chance......... Historic NY Jul 2016 #123

You don't get it. He was offered a trial. HE chose to die. Akicita Jul 2016 #135

Good robot. Polish it, and give it the rest of the week off. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #23

You might change your mind if/when the robot knocks at your door. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #70

Better yet, make it a sergeant. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #148

'Robot'? LOL! A gun is just as much of a 'robot': you push a button and someone's dead. randome Jul 2016 #26

Guns don't have independent movement abilities n/t jamese777 Jul 2016 #68

Neither did the bomb delivery system. It was remotely controlled. randome Jul 2016 #72

Self propelled artillery does. They are just big guns. Akicita Jul 2016 #136

next time let these "legal experts" read the gunman his rights & cuff him rollin74 Jul 2016 #38

Doesn't the suspect have to sleep at some point? PlanetaryOrbit Jul 2016 #41

'Catch him' dozing? You mean like sneak in very quietly, break down the door and tiptoe to his side? randome Jul 2016 #59

No sense waiting. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #80

First you play the race card, now the "no good democrat" card elias7 Jul 2016 #147

This issue is at the crux of the whole problem randr Jul 2016 #77

A prize winning and very succinct answer. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #88

Police (and you, and me) have every legal and moral authority.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #105

Iminent threat is a convenient excuse far too often randr Jul 2016 #120

You have a guy who's shot 11 people, killing 5, holed up with a gun, continuing to shoot at you.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #151

My question would have been how long he would have been able to hole up randr Jul 2016 #153

So wait to see if he really does have explosives planted around? X_Digger Jul 2016 #154

Did law enforcement officers in the Bundy standoff randr Jul 2016 #156

Oh, had they actually shot someone? I must've missed that. What was the body count? X_Digger Jul 2016 #161

Ok, so you are saying that once a person commits a crime and before randr Jul 2016 #169

I'm saying that ACTUALLY KILLING FIVE PEOPLE lends itself to 'imminent grave bodily injury'. X_Digger Jul 2016 #179

The situation at the time of blowing up randr Jul 2016 #216

You're misinformed. He was continuing to shoot at the negotiators. X_Digger Jul 2016 #217

Do you not understand that the shooter chose not to use the legal system even though it was offered Akicita Jul 2016 #138

There are people every day who are in a dire health condition randr Jul 2016 #155

If the person is resisting medical attention with automatic weapons I seriously doubt any medical Akicita Jul 2016 #159

what a crock. There is no "choice" to use ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #190

Thank you randr Jul 2016 #226

I'm surprised... Pacifist Patriot Jul 2016 #214

Not to worry? merrily Jul 2016 #78

Not to worry. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #89

If a reporter cannot tell the difference between a bomb going off and a gunshot, merrily Jul 2016 #96

Agreed on the "diner rule". eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #98

Don't see the militarization. Igel Jul 2016 #189

A lot of people here on DU have been asking the same question Warpy Jul 2016 #92

The key word is "might". guillaumeb Jul 2016 #97

The key to me is that the shooter was offered the judicial route. He chose the deadly force route Akicita Jul 2016 #139

Drones have been summarily executing people without trial for years now. egduj Jul 2016 #94

As Bob Dylan wrote: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #100

If a white person cowardly ambushes and kills five people I don't think anybody will mind if he is Akicita Jul 2016 #140

It will, and this is the first step toward that very situation Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #101

I suspect it's not the case that it was used on US soil. Igel Jul 2016 #191

Using explosives to take out a "dangerous" criminal? What could possibly go wrong? Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #95

Yes, as I mentioned in my post, MOVE is the precedent for this. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #102

In the MOVE bombing Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #104

Don't forget Waco. Akicita Jul 2016 #141

Thanks for posting. Daemonaquila Jul 2016 #103

Legal rights apply whenever there is a reasonable presumption struggle4progress Jul 2016 #106

Killer cops kill people mwrguy Jul 2016 #107

I would have been okay with 2naSalit Jul 2016 #109

Knockout gases are mostly a hollywood invention. (Especially in an open air place.) X_Digger Jul 2016 #111

And... 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #115

Bullshit... 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #110

Thanks for furthering an important discussion, guillaumeb. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #112

Should police have waited out Omar Manteen when he threatened to strap bomb vests to hostages? Lancero Jul 2016 #113

It wasn't a robot fbc Jul 2016 #116

The bomb part is commonly used to blow up suspicious packages--- no? nt 63splitwindow Jul 2016 #122

Yes, and in this case they used it on a human fbc Jul 2016 #168

Can't put the Robo-cop back in the bottle. Rex Jul 2016 #118

Just wait until the 'bad guys' start using drones. Hugin Jul 2016 #137

Of course. Igel Jul 2016 #193

The concerns are fair and valid, BUT this was an exceptional scenario bluestateguy Jul 2016 #119

Next Step: Flying Robots (A.K.A. "Drones") n/t Binkie The Clown Jul 2016 #125

Using the robot was the right decision. romanic Jul 2016 #127

What difference does the method make? Matrosov Jul 2016 #130

^^^This^^^ Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #149

Army surplus... kentuck Jul 2016 #150

It was and is a slippery slope to go with its use. Like all new technologes, there is what riversedge Jul 2016 #152

More weapons designed for war and given to police guillaumeb Jul 2016 #221

For those who cling to the idea that the shooter "had his chance to surrender"... Moostache Jul 2016 #158

bravo, or brava, as it fits. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2016 #192

You're not Johnson. Igel Jul 2016 #195

It's barely a robot Loki Liesmith Jul 2016 #178

An alarm should be raised. nt LWolf Jul 2016 #180

Neutralizing him, even if it meant killing or bombing him, was the right thing to do. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #185

Two words. Due process. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #220

He was an immediate threat to others. He wasn't entitled to due process. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #230

He was isolated and surrounded. eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #231

And threatening to detonate bombs. Time to kill the fucker before he kills someone else. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #235

K&R. nt. NCTraveler Jul 2016 #186

You cannot both flee justice and claim it. The sniper learned that. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #196

As did Laquan McDonald when he was shot 16 times by police? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #199

Um, no. Only a simplistic an unlawerly reading of the law would conflate fleeing msanthrope Jul 2016 #208

A legal question? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #210

Answer: you aren't asking the right questions. msanthrope Jul 2016 #213

I cannot build a case, but guillaumeb Jul 2016 #219

Well...you just lost the argument with your first 5 words. Thank you. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #222

And you avoided a chance to actually engage. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #223

You just did my job for me. Part of being a great lawyer is accepting victory and walking away. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #224

Humble and infallible. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #225

I have no problem with the police killing him. The use of a robot was way too far. OregonBlue Jul 2016 #197

Of course it's OK! HassleCat Jul 2016 #202

So all of these people murdered by the police guillaumeb Jul 2016 #204

The policeman is your friend! HassleCat Jul 2016 #207

Sorry. I missed the sarcasm. eom guillaumeb Jul 2016 #209

So the Author is Saying: On the Road Jul 2016 #205

Did you read both articles that were cited? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #206

Why is this different from being shot by a sniper? TexasMommaWithAHat Jul 2016 #229

The technical aspects are different, but the result is the same. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #232

Meh. This dude deserved to be blowed up. Adrahil Jul 2016 #233

How about concern for the concept of due process? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #234

IMHO no moral difference between this and a sniper shot The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #236

Slowly encroaching police state. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #237

Equally, that is my only point The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #239

Could have had flash bang and gas grenades. Mc Mike Jul 2016 #238

Or, as I pointed out, LRADs. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #240

You're right. Good o.p. Recommended. nt. Mc Mike Jul 2016 #241